Talk:Entanglement devices
Dave Moulds Is it worth adding Dave Moulds' pledge to eviscerate robots that try and fail to entangle his bot, as a weakness? And if yes, does anyone have a source, and does anyone know if any other spinners have pledged to do the same? RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 03:25, October 10, 2017 (UTC) :Seems like trash talk and hype only, I doubt it should be taken seriously. Even If he's serious, that only means he's a bad sportsman and that's not a disadvantage of the weapon so much as a trivia point. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 06:33, October 10, 2017 (UTC) ::Perhaps, but without that threat, there is very little disincentive to use an entanglement device. 'RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 16:58, October 10, 2017 (UTC) :::It's a good idea, although it might be worth waiting to see whether or not Moulds follows through on his pledge before we add it. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'T'OAS]][[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'T']] 17:43, October 10, 2017 (UTC) ::::Think about what you're really saying though. One roboteer said he'd do everything he could to wreck robots who came up with a way to beat him. It's absolutely ridiculous. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 19:18, October 10, 2017 (UTC) :At the moment, two are for it (or rather, certainly considering it) and one is against it. CrashBash (talk) 19:30, October 10, 2017 (UTC) ::I suggest that the solution will be to add it as a trivia point. After all, it is interesting, but unless the robot is facing Carbide, it is not a significant disadvantage in my opinion. SpaceManiac888 (Talk) 19:38, October 10, 2017 (UTC) :::SM has hit it on the head. Fighting Carbide has already proven to involve evisceration anyway. You could probably just add "difficult to repair after fight with Carbide" to every weapon type and it'd be more relevant. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ''' 19:44, October 10, 2017 (UTC) :I don't see it as a bad thing, the whole point of Robot Wars is trying to design something to beat the best, and the best have to adapt to new advances. It's a '''great quote because Carbide have to try and work out how to deal with Entanglement Devices. Jimlaad43(talk) 20:34, October 10, 2017 (UTC) ::I'm not against having the quote in the article, but I legitimately haven't heard a reason why one roboteer saying he'll destroy another robot with excessive force because it was designed to beat him should be listed as a disadvantage for that particular weapon type. When you design a robot, you don't make your decisions based on what will happen if you maybe fight Carbide and Dave Moulds actually follows through on his threat. ::As things stand, there's nothing to be said - it's speculation, possibly (probably) trash talk, and we don't even have the exact words of the quote yet. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 08:13, October 11, 2017 (UTC) :::Yes, but right now, you're one of only two people who are flat-out against it, whilst the other three people seems to be either for flat-out adding it, or at the very least considering it. It may be 3 vs 2, but this puts you in the minority ATM, and you constantly responding to everyone who does want it isn't going to change that. You've already said everything you need to, TG. Please just let it go and wait. CrashBash (talk) 13:10, October 11, 2017 (UTC) :Ok, thanks for all the input, I'm nixing this since it's just Carbide and no other bots, and since the discussion has become about our opinions on the rule rather than what to write. I'll reconsider if it becomes more mainstream. 'RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 18:51, October 11, 2017 (UTC) Precise definition? What exactly constitutes a high-tech device? At the moment, our definition says fishing nets are too low-tech, but cloth and rope are ok. Also, is there a rule sheet or other source we can refer to? RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 19:55, October 11, 2017 (UTC) :The official Series 10 build rules should suffice; the rules on what constitutes legal and illegal entanglement devices can be found on the last page, as well as their intended purpose. [[User:VulcansHowl|'Vulcans']][[User talk:VulcansHowl|'Howl']] 20:05, October 11, 2017 (UTC) Evolution I want to make a case for whether or not Evolution has an entanglement device. I peronally believe it did. On the side of the robot were two cords (atleast in Series 5), and during the fight, one was ripped off, and snagged up Sabretooth's weaponry. Johnathan Pearce even remarks, saying that he was "Snagging the sabretooth Teeth." What do you guys think? ToonRaiderStudios (talk) :Yes that did happen. But I'm not to sure whether it was or not.--Harry Stormer (talk) 08:15, January 4, 2018 (UTC) ::The big question would be whether or not it was intentional. If it wasn't, (Like Black Widow, th ewalker), then maybe it could be mentioned after the list. Whether or not it was intentional, there was a cord applied to evolution which entangled the weapon of another robot. ToonRaiderStudios (talk) :::I imagine it probably was intentional, but if we're not willing to chance it, then Evolution still belongs in the trivia section. [[User:ToastUltimatum|'TOAST,']] [[User talk:ToastUltimatum|'FLIPPER']] 16:27, January 4, 2018 (UTC)